So: the huge unpaid debt that Ukraine owes to Russia is even less likely to be repaid, because the people in control of Ukraine started immediately by cleaning out the national central bank's gold in order to pay back some of the mere $5+ billion they owe to their U.S. Government benefactors -- and, of course, they've now got to pay U.S. firms additionally for the loads of weapons with which to exterminate the residents in Ukraine's southeastern half (as they're now doing). Since Ukraine owes Russia over ten billion dollars, Obama's policy of getting Ukraine to pay off western banks and central banks before a penny will go eastward, to Russia, is part of his plan in the scheme to destroy Russia.
Right away, Yatsenyuk started his ethnic-cleansing campaign to get rid of Yanukovych's voters, the people in the southeastern half of Ukraine. Almost immediately after Yatsenyuk became the leader of Ukraine, he sacked the existing three Deputy Defense Ministers, on March 5th, and replaced them with three rabidly anti-Russian neo-Nazis, who were committed to the bombing-policy. The person who was made the Minister of Defense, Mikhail Koval, announced his intention to ethnically cleanse from southeastern Ukraine the "subhumans" who voted for Yanukovych, who will "be resettled in other regions," meaning either Russia (if Russia accepts these Ukrainian refugees) or else concentration-camps inside Ukraine (and then perhaps death). "There will be a thorough filtration of people," he said. Their property will be confiscated, and "Land parcels will be given out for free to the servicemen of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and other military formations, as well as to the employees of Interior Ministry and the Security Service of Ukraine that are defending territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country in eastern and southeastern regions of Ukraine." That's the euphemism for the ethnic cleansing.
This is being done in order to provide a nuclear-missile base inside what will have become the ethnically cleansed area of Ukraine, just a ten-minute missile-flight away from annihilating Moscow -- too fast for Russia to respond. Also, the renewed Cold War will greatly boost profits of Lockheed-Martin and other defense contractors.
It has previously been estimated that freeing up the tar sands in this way could add a hundred billion dollars to the net worths of the two Koch brothers, or, "$100 billion in potential profits due to KXL." However, that estimate of $100 billion failed to take into account that David and Charles Koch own not 100% of Koch Industries but instead 84% of it; Elaine Marshall owns the remaining 16%. Consequently, what's at stake for the two Koch brothers in this matter is probably actually closer to $85 billion. By coincidence, that's about their current net worth (according to Forbes); so, they would basically double their wealth if Obama succeeds for them at breaking open the EU market and approving the KXL. However, one reason why Obama might have been delaying his KXL Pipeline decision is that, if he can't get the EU to relax its anti-global-warming rules, that pipeline might become moot. In that instance, the Kochs, and the other investors in tar-sands oil, will need to find some other way to make their investment there profitable, perhaps via construction of a different pipeline, maybe to coastal Canada. As it is, the most extensive-ever analysis of the situation, which was done in 2013 by the world's largest bank, HSBC, and titled "Oil & Carbon Revisited: Value at Risk from 'Unburnable' Reserves," found that the oil in those sands won't ever be burnt unless the world totally ignores anti-global-warming regulations. It would be the last oil to be burnt: never. Apparently, Obama is fighting like hell to do that -- to eviscerate anti-global-warming rules -- and so to turn this planet into hell. But, of course, his rhetoric has never been at all like that. But inasmuch as he's no longer worrying about being re-elected, there's no longe a point to his rhetoric, anyway; so, he's straight-out fascist. And, as a fascist, he's comfortable having placed nazis in control of Ukraine. (Click on those links if you doubt that he did.)
Some people say that Obama, who thus is an international war criminal, doesn't deserve to be impeached. After all, he didn't stain Monica Lewinsky's dress and lie about it. He has only turned America into the world's leading fascist nation and thus perpetrated treachery against our World War II honor, of having waged war against Hitler, and so has defiled all of our WWII soldiers' graves. So, supposedly, we're simply obliged to let him finish out his second term. Supposedly, there is no accountability for defiling America's democratic heritage like that. But what would America's Founders think of Americans, if we accept such vile thinking as that? Would they disown us, as Obama has effectively disowned them and lied through his teeth to us? Are we really obliged to accept that? If so: what would constitute grounds for impeaching a President? After all, it's not a court-proceeding. It is only a forced removal from office. Court proceedings, if any, would be separate, and couldn't even begin until he's out of office; and the standards ruling over it are totally different. Impeachment is instead a political decision: This person no longer represents us. That's all it is about.
In the present case, the first thing it would do is to restore America's honor in the world, and in history. We must reject nazism yet again -- this time when it comes from America's President, Obama himself -- we must reject this closeted nazi's, Obama's, commitment to changing from our previous nuclear strategy, of using nuclear weapons to avoid war as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), to a strategy instead of "nuclear primacy" (or our developing the capacity for a nuclear surprise attack, such as a NATO missile-attack launched from Ukraine would do -- it's just ten minutes missile-flight away from Moscow).
We should impeach Obama. America needs to do it. And the time remaining in which it can be done is now short. Republicans have announced that they won't do it. As has been explained, "Republicans have been calling for this president to be impeached for things that George W. Bush did. Currently, some Republicans want to impeach Obama for Bush's immigration policy. It never stops." But, congressional Republicans (the Republicans who would be doing it if any Republicans do) won't impeach him for being too much of a Republican. So: either congressional Democrats will do it, or else America will go down in shame for its not being done -- not even with a closeted nazi inside the White House.
Which congressional Democrats will stand forth as persons of honor? Which ones will introduce the necessary congressional resolution? Which ones will deserve to be re-elected? It can be introduced by a member of the U.S. House, no one else; the Senate would then serve as the jury to vote the final verdict in this non-judicial proceeding -- an impeachment vote.
Which Democratic House member will introduce the necessary impeachment resolution? Who will do what America needs to be done, what history itself calls out to be done? Is there a Democrat in the House who possesses the honor, and the courage, to do what needs to be done, for the benefit of the entire country? We'll soon know. And all Americans will live thereafter with the consequences, either way. If Obama is not impeached, it will be two such disastrous failures in a row: first, George W. Bush who should have been impeached but was not; then, Barack Obama who should be impeached, but is not. Is this a country with no accountability? Is it a dictatorship? We'll soon know. We'll soon know whether Obama is a dictator, or a President. We'll soon know what type of country we actually live in.
NOTE:
A reader-comment to a previous article I did on Obama's impeachment asked: "Could you care to explain why it is political suicide for the Republicans to impeach Obama for any assumed legitimate reasons but it is not political suicide for the Democrats to impeach Obama for the same reasons? I would like to see you[r] logic."
I responded: "Because of the same reason why Republicans got hurt badly by trying to impeach Bill Clinton: it would be seen as a viciously partisan act. And because of another reason: This time, there are numerous real reasons why the President ought to be impeached. Like I said, Republicans won't impeach him for being too much of a Republican. Only Democrats can impeach him for that, but Republicans cannot. That's why Palin etc. want to impeach him on fake grounds -- it's all that Republicans have. But Boehner recognizes that it would hurt Republican electoral chances. The [political] dynamics are very different for the two Parties."
----------
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
6
3
3
